this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
117 points (80.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3323 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 8 months ago (22 children)

This direct contradiction of clearly articulated administration policy is possible because because of the bank’s nominal independence. It makes its own decisions and evaluates its own deals—it’s supposed to conduct transactions that support the American economy, free from political interference.

I see you have taken to heart my advice about making more subtle and "what? it's technically true"-defensible postings, that through the phrasing of their headline still feed the narrative that Biden's bad for the climate even though he pushed through a climate bill that's predicted to reduce US emissions by 40% in the next 6 years, and this particular financing deal is only tangentially related to him. (In the article it says the bank is actually forbidden by law from choosing deals to finance or not based on which industry they relate to.)

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (19 children)

Vote for Biden. Seriously. I don't care. Just know what you're voting for.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

A 40% reduction in emissions and continued American democracy?

[–] CrazyFrog97@discuss.online 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] june@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Name a reasonable (see: electable) alternative who is

  1. better on Israel
  2. better for the economy
  3. can beat trump

Until you can you should probably stfu because if you think it’s better to see Biden lose to trump over Israel, you’re going to be pretty damn disappointed when trump puts boots on the ground to help Israel.

[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

I'm tired of seeing this worn out point. What exactly would you propose he do that is:

  1. Actually possible for him to do

  2. Not going to make the situation worse

  3. Not something he is already doing

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Israel is doing either but the US has painted themselves into a corner long before the Biden admin. We can't stop supporting Israel without basically ceding control of the region to Iran, and I guarantee Iran will do shit that will make Israel look like Mr. Rogers by comparison.

I'm not saying there's nothing he could be doing better, but I don't see any productive discussion from the people calling him Genocide Joe.

And all that aside, he's still by far the preferable alternative to Don Cheeto who would likely actually be a genocide enabler.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)